our commitment is to a civil public square — a
vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too. Thus every right we assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others. A right for a Christian is a right for a Jew, and a right for a secularist, and a right for a Mormon, and right for a Muslim, and a right for a Scientologist, and right for all the believers in all the faiths across this wide land.
Translation: these Christian leaders have arrived at a vision that mirrors Rawls's idealistic theory of the public sphere, which asserts that society can contain different religious and political belief systems that are based to a certain degree on reason and therefore accept that not everyone will agree. How does this square with these same religious leaders' belief that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life"? I think these leaders recognize the unreasonableness of coersion as a route to conversion and seek to defend their faith through reason. Good for them! But is there an element of universalism in their faith? Of course there is -- the truth is still absolute, even if not everyone agrees. I'm no philosopher, but I appreciate this effort to use reason to defend the faith. Of course, the media focuses on the wrong things and won't allow this manifesto to get any traction. Here's an example.
No comments:
Post a Comment